Do you think businesses are too qualification minded?

[Sidhe]

You're probably right, "doing" is better. But you need titles or you're no-one. Only then people will let you do.

I never usually get involved in Economics threads but I drafted this post from the thread about the incompetent lecturer, interesting to me, it's the same the world over I guess, without a piece of paper you are less than nothing, your potential your intelect and everything you are is found in the universities scriblings and the signature at the bottom of the parchment.

It's worse in my department I see jobs that once used to need basic levels of education in physics or biology that now require degrees, people who hold the them went sometimes from school into apprenticeships and then onto do jobs that now require a degree the reason it costs too much money to train someone and is a risky investment, even though a degree seldom teaches you how to do a job in the real world unless it's research, which 90% of the departement jobs aren't.

So you have a degree but you spend the same amount of time as a trainee to learn the equipment and egineering skills, even applicable degrees don't teach you how to use the equipment? And this makes sense because? Solution employ experienced people only, now you have to do nothing whatsoever to train them, not quite in this case as it involves medical equipment in most cases, so theres a whole new level of understandably anal training. So your work force is old. and you are faced with the problem of them all retiring at the age of x, so what do you do, continue as if this isn't a problem?

This is an example of what is happening country wide and how false short term economies amongst businesses are leading to losses and skill shortages? Now this isn't a majority case by any means but in some areas it's becoming quite a serious problem. Is it a sin to think forward or are we looking at only short term projections?

Oh in my situation I'll play the game and get a degree, but it still doesn't make me feel any better that I'm looking at jobs I could of done ten years ago now, and having to get a 8 year part time degree to do now! Why study 8 years to do a job you can already do

 

[Veritass]

Even when I managed a telephone support department, I would favor candidates that had a degree -- any degree. It used to be that this implied that (1) they at least had a good grasp of verbal and written language, and (2) they knew how to put up with a certain amount of crap to get to a goal. Everyone has had to deal with a certain amount of bad professors, weird requirements, strange fellow students, etc. to get the degree. These bad bosses, weird requirements, and strange fellow employees are all in the workplace as well.

 

[Marshy]

I believe that employers use university qualifications as a type of quality control. If you are attempting to decide on one of a number of candidates for a job and you don't demand a university qualification then what do you have to go on? A CV, a few references and a 30 minute interview. A candidate with a degree has slogged their way through four years to achieve that qualification. So at least that is something concrete for the employer.

Do I think it's fair? Not particularly. Employers should trust their own judgement on not rely on universities.

The other case for demanding a degree is that some employers believe that those who studied at university are more likely to be able to retrain themselves when needs be. This is important as in many sectors skills become redundant very quickly. Whether or not uni. actually prepares people to retrain themselves is very debatable!

But I guess ultimately empoyers simply demand the highest level of qualification that they can get away with. If there were 1000's of people with PhDs applying for jobs in McDonalds soon it would become a requirement for all their employees to have a doctorate.

 

[Sidhe]

Oh don't get me wrong it's not about the deegree itself, it's what it represents, but what beats me up is that they have raised the bar so high that, school leavers or college trainees can no longer get them, thus forcing an ever more aged work force into the market. My place goes one step further and can even discriminate against degrees in favour of actual hands on experience, 15 years engineering experience will get you alot more respect than a piece of paper, how would you feel if you lost out to another candidate, despite having put 3 or 4 years into a degree. It's odd really because this person no doubt got where he was by being an apprentice, but these schemes no longer exist in many places. so you have a catch twenty two where you can't get training but you need to be experienced? Industry is slowly and repeatedly shooting itself in the foot it seems.

 

[Mathilda]

Must be dependent on the field.
In my line I'd take someone with experience over someone with qualifications any day.
Best to have both of course

 

[warmonger]

There has certainly been qualification inflation over my long technical and business career.

When I got my first lab job (late 1970's) - I was one of the 15% of the population that went to Uni - I was a lousy scientist but that didn't matter; I had passed through the filter. Now anybody with less than a Masters degree would be wasting their time applying.

Thirty years later, I keep my senior executive job because of my experience. But any one who comes behind better have a combined PhD and MBA or MD and MBA or they want get to first base.

Problem is that too many governments around the world tried to solve youth unemployment by making as many as possible go to Uni when they The youths) would have been better off doing something else.

 

[Masquerouge]

I think one way to solve this would be to put a qualification cap on jobs. Now who's to put that cap, and on what criterias?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I never usually get involved in Economics threads but I drafted this post from the thread about the incompetent lecturer, interesting to me, it's the same the world over I guess, without a piece of paper you are less than nothing, your potential your intelect and everything you are is found in the universities scriblings and the signature at the bottom of the parchment.

My opinion is that businesses really have nothing to go on when they hire people. When you apply for a job, you submit your resume (or CV) and get interviewed. The employer is hoping to dear god that you are telling the truth at least a majority of the time, because he has no way of verifying anything you have claimed, either on your resume or in person. Only when the events you describe are plausible or implausible can anyone tell that what you say is real or unreal. The interview usually ends up being a formality. The decision to hire is usually made in advance, and the interview is just to make sure there's nothing odd or unexpected about you that would signal a "red flag."

So employers have to constantly up the ante in this bluffing game. What used to demand one level of training now demands a higher level of training. Neither is verifiable but at least it makes it seem more intimidating, so that at least a majority of unqualified applicants won't bother to apply.

 

[warmonger]

The interview usually ends up being a formality. The decision to hire is usually made in advance, and the interview is just to make sure there's nothing odd or unexpected about you that would signal a "red flag."

Sounds like you haven't hired very many people. The CV gets you in the door. That's how I choose the 5 people I will talk to. The interview is everything; that's how I choose between the 5.

And I listen very carefully to what a persons references say about them.

 

[JerichoHill]

In economics, we refer to degrees as "signals" Employers who have to look at thousands of resumes need shortcuts, so these signals help them widdle down the stack to a manageable size to bring in to interview.

So no, I do not think businesses are too qualification minded. While signals are not perfect, they do help increase the likelihood that a employee chosen will be a good fit.

For more on this, check out this:

http://zhongwen.com/cs/index.html

(moreso for the economist article at the bottom)

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Sounds like you haven't hired very many people. The CV gets you in the door. That's how I choose the 5 people I will talk to. The interview is everything; that's how I choose between the 5.

And I listen very carefully to what a persons references say about them.

Not my experience, at least in my profession (health care). I can usually tell in advance, with fair confidence, whether I will be hired for a particular job or not. Sometimes I can even tell if other people will be hired, based on stories they tell me. I knew my wife would be hired by the job she got, some time before she arrived for the interview, and then thereafter, even when she was "sure" she bombed the interview.

I still stand by my statement that employers conflate their ability to discern qualified applicants. I have known friends who based their entire careers on strategically fabricated credentials. I have also been able to subtly manipulate employers into hiring me, using, ironically, the advice of other employers. Once, after not getting a call back for too long, I called an office to say that I was looking forward to working there, but that if they take too long, I would have to take another job offer elsewhere. Two days later I was hired. Can it be coincidence that they just got around to this at that time? I doubt it. (Mind you, I didn't actually lie about anything, but I made the situation seem more desperate than it actually was.) Again, I take no credit for personal skill. This is all gained from listening to the advice of others, some who have been employers themselves.

As far as references go, I can pick and choose them. I'll never submit references from people I am certain would badmouth me, and emphasize those who would praise me. In medicine, the atmosphere is so politically charged that it's impossible to avoid making enemies somewhere. Yet, if you were to examine my CV, and its references, you would think I was a boy scout. In fact, there are some institutions that (unofficially) wouldn't be caught dead acknowledging my past affiliation with them. The trick is that they are considered uninfluential, so that no one would ever bother trying to contact them to ask anything of great importance.

There are some employers, such as yourself, who can see through all this BS, but sadly, the vast majority are just too dense and are easily fooled.

PS: I should add that I haven't practiced some of the particularly fraudulent advice I was offered, such as fabricating a degree, research experience, or society membership. This is actually orchestrated to a specific effect. Things can only bite you back if it's on paper, whereas words, unless recorded, are just hearsay. So I have no fear that something will be "discovered" soon that will destroy my career. I'm not saying that I actually frequently do the things I mentioned, but that many do, and that it's an illusion to think that the employment process is itself largely an illusion.

 

[warmonger]

@Nanocyborgasm

I also work in healthcare - Global pharma company.

Everyone lies on their CV - even me! The interview normally gives up most people who have grossly fabricated their lives. But I use the interview to gauge personality and corporate chemistry - Don't care how good your degrees are - if you are going to piss of the rest of the good folk there's no spot on the team for you.

The references give up the rest. Nobody gives the names of people who are going to bad mouth them but most referees. when pushed, usually give a fairly accurate summary.

At least that's been my experience - only made one really bad hiring blunder but that was because the first two candidates said no when they were offered the job.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

@Nanocyborgasm

I also work in healthcare - Global pharma company.

Everyone lies on their CV - even me! The interview normally gives up most people who have grossly fabricated their lives. But I use the interview to gauge personality and corporate chemistry - Don't care how good your degrees are - if you are going to piss of the rest of the good folk there's no spot on the team for you.

I'll have to take your word for it, as I haven't been in any interviews other than my own to judge. However, based on what I've seen, I have to doubt that most employers are impartial enough to avoid judgements based on pedigree. Most employers are easily impressed by pedigree and name-dropping. Although I have no idea what goes on in their heads or in the interviews they conduct, I have heard their exclamations, and it's clear to me that the right piece of paper will go a long way. So far, in fact, that it will make people oblivious to obvious flaws in a candidate's qualifications. To date, I have only known one group who was critical enough to see through these biases. In the words of one of my mentors, "We've interviewed and accepted some candidates from big-name places, like Columbia and Cornell. They weren't such hot s--t."

The references give up the rest. Nobody gives the names of people who are going to bad mouth them but most referees. when pushed, usually give a fairly accurate summary.

At least that's been my experience - only made one really bad hiring blunder but that was because the first two candidates said no when they were offered the job.

Then you'd have to explain to me how come I keep seeing so many abject idiots in positions of power.

 

[Shylock]

Brainwashing on the part of the media puppetstringed by the government.

They put forth the attitude that someone with a college degree is a demi-god of some kind.

All the while they line their pockets with more blood money.

 

[warmonger]

Then you'd have to explain to me how come I keep seeing so many abject idiots in positions of power.

If I knew the answer to this question, I'll die a happy man. I can't explain it either. Most senior managers I've met (or worked for) are so scared of their staff's higher competency that they feel they have to constantly put them down.

Crazy that the business world works at all.

 

[Sidhe]

It's like this the world over, there are competent managers a thin core of about 10% who rise through the mire of medicocrity hopefully to upper management but the vast swage of banality that sits beneath is usually caused by the fact that only stupid people go for management positions(obvious high qualification management positions aside, ie PhD, MD etc aside) clever people generally aren't beureacratic asshats with the commonsense of a gnat, at least in my experience. In my job for example I once asked my boss whether if a wire on a piece of equipment was showing its inner insulation you would take it off a patient who would die without it, or just gaffer tape it and remove it later, and I had to be subjected to a rules is rules lecture and be told that my boss would rather let the patient die than break the rules? In her defense she does know absolutely nothing about electronics. But since this discussion came about because another colleague would also let the patient die, I thought I'd better just agree to disagree under the overwheliming pressure of stupidity.

 

[sebanaj]

Off course, the public sector is not exempt of good individuals. It may happen from time to time.

 

[sebanaj]

The movie about the doctors whom discovered heart intervention pictures well the situation. It's that movie with Alan Rickman where he plays Dr Blalock. I'm not referring to him but the man who works with him. He didn't have titles and he really had to fight to get recognized. It was a very good movie as everything involving Alan Rickman.

 

[Hotpoint]

It's like this the world over, there are competent managers a thin core of about 10% who rise through the mire of medicocrity hopefully to upper management but the vast swage of banality that sits beneath is usually caused by the fact that only stupid people go for management positions(obvious high qualification management positions aside, ie PhD, MD etc aside) clever people generally aren't beureacratic asshats with the commonsense of a gnat, at least in my experience

As regards the notion that "only stupid people go for management positions" might I paraphrase Plato in that "Those who are too smart to engage in management are punished by being managed by those who are dumber"*

Hotpoint (a non-dumb Manager )




* In the original it's "politics" not "management" and "governed" not "managed" btw

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

If I knew the answer to this question, I'll die a happy man. I can't explain it either. Most senior managers I've met (or worked for) are so scared of their staff's higher competency that they feel they have to constantly put them down.

Crazy that the business world works at all.

Aha! So it's jealousy!